Jump to content

Paradox of visual and actual positions in space.


Recommended Posts

Brief description to avoid unnecessary complication.
The distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 8 light minutes, so from the Earth we see the Sun at the point in the sky where it was 8 minutes ago (in 8 minutes the Sun passes through the sky with an angular distance of slightly less than two solar disks) ... It is difficult to both explain and imagine, because most likely it is impossible, that is, cosmic distances are too exaggerated.


11eng.jpg


The distance from the Earth to the Moon is about 1 light second. That is, the apparent and actual position of the moon is almost the same. The shortest distance from Earth to Jupiter is about 32 light minutes. The apparent and actual positions of Jupiter differ 4 times more than in the case of the Sun.
 

22eng.jpg


The question and the most important thing. Why is astronomy not taking into account the actual and visible position of space objects corrected for the speed of light? The motions of the planets are calculated using Kepler's formulas. The calculated positions of the planets (that is, the actual ones) coincide with the visual ones without corrections for the speed of light. I do not question the speed of light, it has been measured and refined for several centuries. The official space distances and the sizes of space objects, respectively, are in great doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

The question and the most important thing. Why is astronomy not taking into account the actual and visible position of space objects corrected for the speed of light? The motions of the planets are calculated using Kepler's formulas. The calculated positions of the planets (that is, the actual ones) coincide with the visual ones without corrections for the speed of light. I do not question the speed of light, it has been measured and refined for several centuries. The official space distances and the sizes of space objects, respectively, are in great doubt.

Maybe this helps: As predicted by general relativity and confirmed by observation of the GW170817 neutron star merger*, the speed of light and the speed of gravitational waves is identical.

On what scientific grounds do you base your doubts regarding distances in space?

 

*) https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0145/P1700294/007/ApJL-MMAP-171017.pdf

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

It is difficult to both explain and imagine, because most likely it is impossible, that is, cosmic distances are too exaggerated.

You think so? Why? Calculating distances to the Sun is actually easy and done via triangulation. More distant objects use a variety of methods including Ceiphed variables and other standard candles. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

Why is astronomy not taking into account the actual and visible position of space objects corrected for the speed of light?

But such corrections were made, even before modern astronomy.

But don't forget that measurements were/are made using angles, not distances.
And all references to positions are in relation to an observer located on Earth.
The astronomical system that has been developed assumes astronomical bodies are located on a sphere or spheres which rotate about the Earths axis.
In the case of multiple spheres these are thought to rotate at different speeds to acount for the differences between fast moving objects such as planets and slower ones such as stars.

But in all cases the actual radii of these spheres,  ie the distance to the objects is irrelevent to angular measure.

A more important, but finer correction needs to be made to do with what is meant by the 'position' of the object of observable size (diameter).
How to we identify the centre of such an object in an observation ?
Bear in mind that for most of the history of astronomic observations, the only important observation was about what is known as 'transit' ie the highest point reached by the object in the sky. For any observer the local noon is the time of transit of the Sun.

To find the correct. postion astronomers and surveyors use what is known as

The Equation of Time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_time

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

Why is astronomy not taking into account the actual and visible position of space objects corrected for the speed of light?

Show that this will make a difference in some calculation.

How would this difference in actual vs apparent angular position cast doubt on distances and sizes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does the 'actual' position even matter ?

The fact that it takes light 8 min to travel from the Sun to the Earth, means that all other effects and information are constrained to the same speed; even changes in gravity.

IOW, the 'apparent' position already takes the speed of light/information into account.
Why go to the extra trouble of using the 'actual' position, and then have to take the speed of light into account ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

This needs to be asked in a different way.

Imagine your galaxy is like a clock.

Imagine the galaxy rotates at a speed such that in the time it takes for light to cross the galaxy, the galaxy has rotated so that the 12 position is now at the 1 position. 

Imagine you are at the 5 position when light leaves 12 to cross the galaxy. You receive that light at the 6 o'clock position and see the object at the 12 o'clock position. 

The actual position of what sent light to you from 12 is at 1. Your current position is at 6. The past positions were 12 and 5, respectively.

What does this visual distortion mean regarding the structural symmetry we see in the spiral arm galaxy for instance.

An apparent straight line is actually a curved line or a bent line.

Or rather? Is the whole face of the clock (space time) turning as well so that 12 and 6 can be a straight line even as the light that left 12 has so much distance to travel it took an hour's time to reach you as per the clock analogy. 

 

If all of spacetime (face of the clock) is turning then the 12 vs 6 position will be a straight line. 

If the objects of a galaxy are moving through a more static space time then an object at 12 is really at 1. And the apparent straight line is actually a bent line.

Edited by IDNeon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good way to confuse yourself and others.
All information is limited to c , and, other than relic ( unchanging ) space-time curvature, cannot affect you any faster than the light reaching you.
'Actual' position is non-sensical, it is like saying "Where is it, now", and we know that there is no 'now' for everyone and every place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MigL said:

Good way to confuse yourself and others.
All information is limited to c , and, other than relic ( unchanging ) space-time curvature, cannot affect you any faster than the light reaching you.
'Actual' position is non-sensical, it is like saying "Where is it, now", and we know that there is no 'now' for everyone and every place.

Well the reason this is interesting to me is because we can see apparent structure in the universe, particularly in galaxies.

 

Assume you see a structure that is a straight line crossing the center of a galaxy. 

Given the previously stated parameters we would have to say that the apparent structure is an illusion caused by the speed of light.

The structure would be curved as previously described.

If space time itself isn't rotating around the same gravity well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.